11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
11.1 C.O. 885
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
20
We have already explained both the opposing views held by statisticians as to the principle on which these statements should be based, and also the object which the British Custom House sets itself to attain in this respect. We think it may safely be said that the aim should be to show not the country of original production or ultimate consumption, but the commercial transaction that takes place in an exchange of goods between two countries. The difficulty, however, of doing this with any degree of accuracy under the complex conditions of modern trade is often very great, and sometimes insuperable. As a mere matter of compiling returns the question would be simple enough if the Customs were to confine themselves accepting the place shown in the clearance as indicating the country of origin or destination; but results so obtained would be highly misleading. To illustrate this we may cite three cases of varying degrees of difficulty. (1.) Goods are shipped from British to American ports, and the country of destination is thus apparently the United States. But it is well known that large quantities of such goods are consigned for conveyance by land or water to Canada, and to debit these to the United States would be to unduly swell the return of our trade with that country at the expense of our Canadian trade. (2.) Switzerland has no seaport, and therefore there is apparently no trade between Great Britain and that country, although it is a matter of common knowledge that large quantities of Swiss goods are imported into the United Kingdom. (3.) Vessels leave Indian ports with instructions to call at Port Said for orders. In such cases the country of destination must be given as Egypt, or omitted altogether, though it is obvious that the trade is in no sense with that country.
On this point we are reluctantly forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to formulate any general rules, and that it must be left to the various Colonial authorities to follow such a procedure as will most nearly carry out the principle we have laid down above. For their guidance we may state that the general practice of the British Custom House is that when trade is known to follow a particular route, the goods should be regarded as coming from the country from which they were originally sent, or as going to that for which they are really intended, even though the goods may have been transshipped on the way. question of comparative statistics, the chief danger is that country A may regard goods as destined for C although passing in transit through B, whereas C may treat them as coming from B. This might perhaps be obviated, in the case of any well ascertained line of trade, by communications between the Customs authorities of the two countries, which would result in a uniform mode of treatment. But when every precaution has been taken it will still be true that These statistics can only be handled with safety by
• See p. 15.
† See p. 9.
As &
{
21
experts who have an intimate knowledge of the nature and extent of the corrections that require to be made Defore
any trustworthy inferences can be drawn from them.
us.
XV. It only remains for us to notice a subject Classificad which has occupied a greater share of our attention of goods. than perhaps any other of the questions referred to Hitherto we have been discussing the prepara- tion of what may be called the raw material of com- parative trade statistics; but we feel that the value of these returns would be greatly enhanced if it were possible to devise some few heads under which imports and exports might be classified in a uniform manner throughout the Empire, and in such a way as to show the direction and fluctuation of industrial effort.
We have already described the systems of classifi- cation adopted in Great Britain, India, the princips! Foreign Countries, and three of our more important Colonies.
The foreign systems may be at once dismissed as too cumbersome. That of Great Britain has the disadvantage of being different for imports and exports, and of having been designed to show the course of certain particular trades. That of the three Colonies is of too complex a nature for adoption as a general summary, although we have examined it with much care in considering whether its seven "classes" might not, be made the basis of a common classification.
The method which we have decided to recommend for adoption is the general classification of all imports
and exports under the following four heads ;—
I. Live Animals, Food and Drink, and Narcotics.
II. Raw Materials—
(a.) Textile.
(b.) Metal.
(c.) Other.
III. Manufactured Articles
Textile.
(6.) Metal.
Other.
IV. Coin and Bullion.
We are of opinion that a comparative statement under these headings would be capable of affording useful indications of the position held by the several colonies in respect of the production of food supplies and manufactures.
We think it essential to avoid a "Miscellaneous " heading, which affords no information, and for this reason we have placed Live Animals with the Food and Drink Class. With the exception of horses, the trade in animals is almost wholly for purposes of food, and we do do not anticipate that the exceptions will materially affect the total values of the class.
It will be understood that our proposed classifica- tion would be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the detailed statements now given by the different
F
'U 66076.